Self-exiles answer to their local readership unlike forced exiles

Evidence

The self-exile has no such irrevocable bond; he is free to choose the degree of elasticity of that bonding, and the material consequences of his migrancy necessarily bring him into a much more accountable relation with the readership which is materially present within the milieu of his productive work. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 222

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes exile from self-exile as writerly categories defined by accountability to the material readership.
• XREF: connects to: Self-exile imposes accountability to the present readership where exile does not — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 512; Chosen self-exile and vagrancy, unlike principled exile, enable celebratory uprootedness — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 627; Self-exile makes a writer accountable to his new, not home, readership

Related

• Self-exile imposes accountability to the present readership where exile does not (similarity 0.92)
• Self-exile makes a writer accountable to his new, not home, readership (similarity 0.91)
• Forced exiles write to an imagined home readership absent materially (similarity 0.84)
• Chosen self-exile and vagrancy, unlike principled exile, enable celebratory uprootedness (similarity 0.80)
• Rhetorical inflation made exile a soul-condition detached from material life (similarity 0.79)